In a background such as described above, it seems reasonable to think that veiling was a custom of the times, like foot washing or anointing with oil. The comments, however, in verses 7-8 suggest to those who believe in the symbolic interpretation that literal headcovering for women and non-headcovering for men is in itself an important divine principle.

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)                                                                                (1 Corinthians 11:7-9)

Because of this comment Paul has often been criticised as being anti-women. He has also been accused of misusing Genesis by thinking that only man (masculine) is in the image of God:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness” … so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him.”                                                                          (Genesis 1:26-27)

There is a difference between the usage in 1 Corinthians 11 and the description in Genesis 11:26. Genesis chapter 1 says that both men and women are in the image of God, whereas 1 Corinthians 11:7 says that man (masculine) is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory of man. It is easy to get the impression that Paul considers that woman is not in the image of God, but to do this is to misunderstand the use Paul is making of Genesis. Paul, we suggest, may be using the term “image” from Genesis 1, but his argument is based mostly on Genesis 2, as is appropriate for the situation he is addressing at Corinth.

In the Septuagint (LXX – the Greek translation of the Old Testament, frequently used in early ecclesias) the Greek word for “man” or “husband” (aner) and for “woman” or “wife” (gyne), used in 1 Corinthians 11, does not occur in Genesis 1 (where the words for “male” and “female” are used), but both are used in the continuation of the Garden of Eden account in Genesis 3, describing how the man and woman ate the forbidden fruit. The word “image” does not occur in Genesis 2 & 3, but it lies behind the thought of the text when it says in Genesis 2:7: “...then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground”, that is, He made an image, and “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”. If we are correct in thinking that Paul is using Genesis 2 rather than the more general statement in Genesis 1, it is significant. For this section of Genesis is dealing with the relationship of husband to wife, and this suggests in turn that the problem in Corinth arose from the attitudes some wives were displaying towards their husbands. What is Paul saying, based on the account of the creation of Adam and then Eve in Genesis?

The key seems to lie in the word “glory”. “Glory” has several possible meanings. In some circumstances it means “brightness or splendour” but this literal meaning is not applicable here. From the metaphorical meaning grows the idea of “fame, the reputation which public acknowledgement brings”. Describing man as “the glory of God” means that man is intended to bring glory to God by the way he acts towards Him. In this context the estimate people hold of God is compromised when men act as pagans by covering their heads for religious activities. By contrast, the woman who undertakes the same religious activities without her head covered brings ill-repute on her husband when she ought by divine intention to be his glory,[1] that is, arouse public respect towards him by her behaviour and demeanour. If this interpretation is correct, it nevertheless means that Paul was writing with the background of propriety according to the customs of the times. Paul stresses by his further comments that a wife was not created to be independent of her husband. In case anyone decides to conclude the opposite, that a husband can be independent of his wife, Paul next adds a corrective, pointing out that men and women are entirely interdependent and that this is the true Christian position (“in the Lord”):

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man [Eve from Adam], so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.            (1 Corinthians 11:11)

It is important to recognise that in this corrective there lies a clearly stated divine principle: “in the Lord”. Within the ecclesia of Christ, there is no place for independence of either sex from the other. It is significant that Paul accepts here that both brothers and sisters speak to the ecclesia in prophecy and prayer, both (presumably) out loud.[2]

In working from Genesis 2-3 Paul was being relevant to the situation in Corinth and his words would be equally relevant to any strong feminist, anti-marriage approach if adopted today. Marriage is intended by God. In Paul’s day, headcovering and veils were recognised as having particular significance in the culture of the times. It is not so today, other than in Islamic countries and in certain Roman Catholic areas of Europe and South America.

 There is no direct equivalent in our society to express the marriage relationship, except perhaps a wedding ring. When a couple marry, the wife generally indicates her relationship to her husband in three ways: she takes his name, she wears a wedding ring, she sets up house with him. The first two were conventions in twentieth century British society, and conventions slowly change. If a wife reverts to her maiden name or declines to wear her ring, this is sometimes considered a sign that her marriage is over. Such signs are important so long as convention gives them meaning. But times change, and some women now keep their maiden name after marriage, and some use their maiden name in one situation (like at work) and their married name otherwise. The real importance from a Christian point of view lies in the relationship itself. This approach is fundamental to the teaching of Jesus. It is not the outward form which is important but the inner attitude of mind.

How, then, should we read and understand 1 Corinthians if we are to take this ancient context into account?

Before we look at this in the next section, let us consider further the teaching that both men and women are created in the image of God.

Both Men and Women are in the Image of God

Augustine (354-430 AD) argued that women stand in the image of God only through their husbands (De Trinitate, 12:7), despite Genesis 1:26-27. Can Genesis 1 be understood to indicate that the man is the image of God, not the woman? It is argued that this can be done by attaching “male and female he created them” to verse 28, instead of its being connected to the end of verse 27.

This rearrangement is not followed by any translation, but that does not in itself make the idea incorrect.

Genesis 1:26-28 reads in the RSV:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

The rearrangement makes it read:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him.

Male and female he created them, and God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

The intention is to allow for the events in Genesis 2 to be inserted in between the two sections, so that only man is “in our image, after our likeness”.

We don’t think this is a legitimate way of solving the problem of how 1 Corinthians 11 refers to man as the image and glory of God, and woman as the glory of man, as if she is not “in our image, after our likeness”.

Genesis 5:1 comments:

In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (KJV)

When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female; at the time they were created, he blessed them and called them “man”. (NIV)

This seems to say that God created both male and female in His likeness. Is not the phrase “image and likeness” in Genesis 1:27 the same as expressed here by “likeness”?

The rest of the Bible considers that human beings are in the image of God. Murder is forbidden because men are in the image of God:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.                                                           (Genesis 9:6)

Should this be considered only applicable to men? Is it all right to kill women because they are not in the image of God? Or does this refer to both?

Likewise in the New Testament, James comments:

With it [the tongue] we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God.                                    (James 3:9)

“Men” (anthropoi), as usual in the New Testament, means “human beings”, male and female.

Genesis 1, therefore, should be understood as describing both men and woman as in the image and likeness of God. It is this that makes them different from the animals and the rest of creation.

Genesis 2 does not contradict this. It presents a complementary perspective, that marriage is intended by God, that man is inadequate on his own, that man needs a suitable companion the same as himself. The creation of woman for this purpose is picked up in 1 Corinthians 11, as is appropriate to the situation in Corinth. That does not mean that woman is in any way inferior to the man, or vice versa.